Eph 1:4 exegeted

[FreeGrace2]

The whole premise of this thread is wrong. The "us" in Ephesians 1:4 is not believers, it's the Jews. This passage is one of the pillars of Calvinism and it is greatly misunderstood by them.

How do you figure? Paul defined "us" in v.19 - and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might

Please explain how the "us" in .19 is different than the "us" in v.4.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, you don't believe in "relationship-ism" because you FAIL to understand the biblical difference between relationship, which is PERMANENT, and fellowship, which is dynamic and may be broken, without any change in relationship.

God used the words "Father" and "son" or "children" for a reason. To demonstrate the spiritual relationship and fellowship issues that are easily seen in physical birth parent and child relationship and fellowship issues. And He gave us a perfect example of that in the prodigal son.


No one is saved by "surrender", and your verses don't support your belief system.


They are disciplines AS SONS. They are NOT severed from relationship. Heb 12:4-11 teach discipline, not severance of relationship.

First, I invented the term "Relationship-ism." Second, If a person does not surrender themselves in a marriage in some way, then it is not a real marriage or relationship. Third, a bastard is still a son but that does not mean a bastard is accepted by their Father or saved. Also, in Colossians 3, Paul talks about the children of disobedience. They are still considered children. However, they are just not God's children by their actions, though.

Acts 10:35 - "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."



....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The whole premise of this thread is wrong. The "us" in Ephesians 1:4 is not believers, it's the Jews. This passage is one of the pillars of Calvinism and it is greatly misunderstood by them.

Where in the context does it even remotely suggest such a thing?


...

 

[FreeGrace2]

First, I invented the term "Relationship-ism." Second, If a person does not surrender themselves in a marriage in some way, then it is not a real marriage or relationship

Again, you have CONFUSED fellowship with relationship. A marriage is a LEGAL and MORAL relationship. Where does marriage come from? God Himself. He instituted it.

The concept of "surrendering themselves in a marriage" speaks to FELLOWSHIP in that relationship. But I see that this discussion is useless, as you simply stubbornly refuse to accept the difference. When you speak of relationship, as you have here, you really mean fellowship, yet you won't admit it.

Third, a bastard is still a son but that does not mean a bastard is accepted by their Father or saved.

This is totally irrelevant since there is NO example in Scripture of a believer becoming a bastard. Your examples are just hilarious.

The Bible speaks of Father (parent) and children. Physically, we see the REAL WORLD EXAMPLE everyday when parents have children. That is a permanent relationship: birth parent to child. It cannot be broken. But go ahead and try.

We also have the Biblical pattern of spiritual parent (God) and His children (believers). There is NO REASON to assume anything different between the physical and spiritual. The spiritual relationship also cannot be broken.

The only thing that can be broken in either the physical or spiritual relationship is fellowship in that relationship. But since you've proven your inability to accept that difference, there is no reason for further discussion. It's like talking to a wall.

Also, in Colossians 3, Paul talks about the children of disobedience. They are still considered children. However, they are just not God's children by their actions, though.

Exactly!! They are acting like someone else's children. But, they are STILL the child of their parent. It would be encouraging if you would at least acknowledge that fact.

Acts 10:35 - "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."....

If there is a point to quoting a verse, please make that clear by explaining why you quote the verse.

I don't see anything relevant to the discussion in the verse you've quoted.

And, btw, let's be sure to consider this verse, written BEFORE v.35: And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean

So, what did God show to Peter by the vision?

 

[EmSw]

Again, you have CONFUSED fellowship with relationship. A marriage is a LEGAL and MORAL relationship. Where does marriage come from? God Himself. He instituted it.

But a divorce ends that relationship.

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

God divorced Himself from His chosen people, that is, ended the relationship.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, you have CONFUSED fellowship with relationship. A marriage is a LEGAL and MORAL relationship. Where does marriage come from? God Himself. He instituted it.

The concept of "surrendering themselves in a marriage" speaks to FELLOWSHIP in that relationship. But I see that this discussion is useless, as you simply stubbornly refuse to accept the difference. When you speak of relationship, as you have here, you really mean fellowship, yet you won't admit it.


This is totally irrelevant since there is NO example in Scripture of a believer becoming a bastard. Your examples are just hilarious.

The Bible speaks of Father (parent) and children. Physically, we see the REAL WORLD EXAMPLE everyday when parents have children. That is a permanent relationship: birth parent to child. It cannot be broken. But go ahead and try.

We also have the Biblical pattern of spiritual parent (God) and His children (believers). There is NO REASON to assume anything different between the physical and spiritual. The spiritual relationship also cannot be broken.

The only thing that can be broken in either the physical or spiritual relationship is fellowship in that relationship. But since you've proven your inability to accept that difference, there is no reason for further discussion. It's like talking to a wall.


Exactly!! They are acting like someone else's children. But, they are STILL the child of their parent. It would be encouraging if you would at least acknowledge that fact.


If there is a point to quoting a verse, please make that clear by explaining why you quote the verse.

I don't see anything relevant to the discussion in the verse you've quoted.

And, btw, let's be sure to consider this verse, written BEFORE v.35: And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean

So, what did God show to Peter by the vision?

No. There are many examples where a parent is cut off from their child because of their evil actions. They would be thrown in prison or executed for their crimes. And a son that is not around is not a part of that living family anymore. A relationship or true sonship that is proper and good is a healthy one whereby they flourish together in harmony by right action. See, Eternal Security is not Relatinship-ism because the Eternal Security Proponent believes they can be out of fellowship with God (i.e. Out of a relationsip with God) and still be saved. There does not need to be a relationship in the Eternal Security belief. For the Eternal Security Proponent believes they can sin and still be saved. Sure, should a believer generally live a holy life according to some Eternal Security Proponents? Perhaps. But what about the other 5% of the sins that they say they are exempt in committing? What about that evil? Does God just sweep that evil under the rug and look the other way? For me, this sounds like a justification of one wanting to do evil and not in desiring to actually walk with God and to do what is good and right (As they know they should).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, a real marriage is not just a legal one. God describes what a real marriage should be like in the fact that a husband is supposed to love his wife like Christ loves the church. Meaning, if there is no love, no heart, no willing to sacrifice yourself for that other person in any way then it is not what a marriage should be (even if it is a legal one). In other words, if two people married for only legal reasons, and they never even met each other and never had any intention of meeting, this one not be considered what God had in mind for marriage. For the two shall be one flesh. A unit. Gathered together under God in love. That is a true marriage. Yes, the legality part is important, but so is the other aspect of that marriage. With no love, no God, no intimacy, no heart, it is also not what God intended for a couple in marriage. For without a relationship, there is no real marriage (even if it may be legal on paper). For other countries will not allow a woman to leave her country out of the blue to someone she just met. They have to establish a relationship first and provide documentary proof of their relationship and that it is real for a good amount of time.


...

 

[Foghorn]

This passage is one of the pillars of Calvinism and it is greatly misunderstood by them.

In your opinion.

 

[Butch5]

In your opinion.

No, it's not opinion. I've heard many Calvinists explain the verse and they've been wrong.

 

[Butch5]

Where in the context does it even remotely suggest such a thing?


...

There's a lot in the context that suggests it. For starters note that Paul distinguishes between two different groups. In verse 3-12 he uses first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our. Then in verse 13 he switches to second person plural pronouns, you and your. Paul includes himself in the first group, the, us, we, our, group. Of this group he says in verse 12',

YLT Ephesians 1:12 for our being to the praise of His glory, even those who did first hope in the Christ,

Who first hoped in the Christ? It was the Jews. The new Jerusalem Bible translates it this way.

NJB Ephesians 1:12 chosen to be, for the praise of his glory, the people who would put their hopes in Christ before he came. (Eph. 1:12 NJB)

If you'd like an in depth exegesis of this passage that includes the Greek text you can find one here.

http://pfrs.org/commentary/Eph_1_3.pdf

 

[Butch5]

How do you figure? Paul defined "us" in v.19 - and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might

Please explain how the "us" in .19 is different than the "us" in v.4.

It's different because Paul starts out talking about God blessing the Jews in verses 3-12. Then in verse 13 he includes the Gentiles. His inclusion of the Gentiles in verse 13 would make the us in verse 19 different from the us prior to verse 13.

 

[Foghorn]

No, it's not opinion. I've heard many Calvinists explain the verse and they've been wrong.

Again, your opinion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
Again, you have CONFUSED fellowship with relationship. A marriage is a LEGAL and MORAL relationship. Where does marriage come from? God Himself. He instituted it.

But a divorce ends that relationship.

Where does divorce fit into God's plan? It doesn't fit at all.

This is what Jesus said about divorce in Matt 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4 AndHe answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Then, the very DENSE Pharisees continued to press Him:
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

So, your question is totally irrelevant to God's plan. In God's plan divorce was NOT God's way.

So, in God's plan, the marriage relationship is permanent, just as the physical birth parent to child relationship is permanent and the spiritual Parent to child relationship is permanent.

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

God divorced Himself from His chosen people, that is, ended the relationship.

Actually, it didn't. Israel has ALWAYS been God's chosen people. The verse you provided uses the metaphor of divorce to indicate that God let Israel go her own way. But Rom 11 clearly indicates that Israel can be grafted in again.

However, let's just focus on the FACT that the physical birth parent to child RELATIONSHIP is permanent and cannot be changed or severed.

And, that is why God chose to use the same wording to represent the PERMANENT RELATIONSHIP between Himself as Father and believers as His spiritual children. The relationship is permanent, and no one can show from Scripture differently.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. There are many examples where a parent is cut off from their child because of their evil actions.

Did their "cutting off" action result in the DNA changing and the child was no longer physically related to the parents? I do want you to answer this question. I'd give you the answer, but I want you to actually think about it and answer it yourself.

They would be thrown in prison or executed for their crimes.

So what? Did the physical relationship change? NO. The parents remained the parents and the child remained the child.

And a son that is not around is not a part of that living family anymore.

Again, irrelevant. The physical relationship between birth parent and child cannot be changed. What you are describing has NO relevance to the issue of relationship.

I guess you still do not grasp what the physical relationship between birth parent and child actually is.

A relationship or true sonship that is proper and good is a healthy one whereby they flourish together in harmony by right action.

Now you're describing FELLOWSHIP, which is the dynamics of RELATIONSHIP. But you're still not understanding the difference.

See, Eternal Security is not Relatinship-ism because the Eternal Security Proponent believes they can be out of fellowship with God (i.e. Out of a relationsip with God) and still be saved.

Your very statement proves your failure to understand the difference. It's a lost cause at this point in trying to explain this to you. Being out of fellowship has NO BEARING ON RELATIONSHIP. But you don't understand that.

In a marriage, even if the spouses are out of fellowship, they are still married. Duh.

In a physical birth parent to child, they can be totally at odds against each other, yet the physical relationship cannot be changed.

But you still don't understand that. I don't think you will ever understand that. Because if you did, you'd HAVE TO admit that the believer's relastionship with God is PERMANENT, which is something that you just won't admit. No matter the facts.

There does not need to be a relationship in the Eternal Security belief.

Well, guess what? God uses such descriptive wording to explain His permanent relationship with believers so that there ABSOLUTELY IS A RELATIONSHIP with God. So to say "there doesn't need to be a relationship" is rather silly since there ALREADY IS ONE.

For the Eternal Security Proponent believes they can sin and still be saved.

Oh, stop with this nonsense. You yourself continue to sin, as you've already indicated, yet you claim you are saved. So DON'T give me that silly "sin and be saved" nonsense.

Sure, should a believer generally live a holy life according to some Eternal Security Proponents? Perhaps. But what about the other 5% of the sins that they say they are exempt in committing?

I have no idea what you are saying here. I know of no one in the OSAS camp that would EVER claim that any sins are "exempt". That's just stupid. And anyone who claims that any kind of sin is exempt (exempt from what, exactly) is a total idiot. Is that clear?

What about that evil?

If it's sin, it needs to be confessed, according to 1 Jn 1:9.

Does God just sweep that evil under the rug and look the other way?

Really? After all I've explained already? You still are stuck on that silliness. As a child of God, we can expect God's hand of discipline for our sins. Even though David confessed his sins (Psa 38 and 51), he was still disciplined. And remember that God's discipline on him was very severe. He suffered greatly because of his sin. He got away with NOTHING.

For me, this sounds like a justification of one wanting to do evil and not in desiring to actually walk with God and to do what is good and right (As they know they should)....

Go ahead and ignore all I've explained if you still want to intertain these very stupid ideas that are NOT a part of OSAS.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's different because Paul starts out talking about God blessing the Jews in verses 3-12. Then in verse 13 he includes the Gentiles. His inclusion of the Gentiles in verse 13 would make the us in verse 19 different from the us prior to verse 13.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the "us" in 1:4 is anything other than all believers. I think your view is preposterous at the least.

 

[EmSw]

Actually, it didn't. Israel has ALWAYS been God's chosen people. The verse you provided uses the metaphor of divorce to indicate that God let Israel go her own way. But Rom 11 clearly indicates that Israel can be grafted in again.

Actually, the verse says God gave Israel a bill of divorcement. That separated any relationship. I know, this doesn't set very well with your beliefs, so I will let you be.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, the verse says God gave Israel a bill of divorcement. That separated any relationship. I know, this doesn't set very well with your beliefs, so I will let you be.

I proved from Scripture God's attitude about divorce in a marriage. And God was never "married" to Israel. So the use of "divorce" in your passage is NOT related to the permanent relationship of marriage that God instituted.

And you still have NO answer for the parallel between physical and spiritual permanent relationship between birth parent and child.

 

[EmSw]

I proved from Scripture God's attitude about divorce in a marriage. And God was never "married" to Israel. So the use of "divorce" in your passage is NOT related to the permanent relationship of marriage that God instituted.

And you still have NO answer for the parallel between physical and spiritual permanent relationship between birth parent and child.

You can't win FG2.

Jeremiah 3:14
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you:

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There's a lot in the context that suggests it. For starters note that Paul distinguishes between two different groups. In verse 3-12 he uses first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our. Then in verse 13 he switches to second person plural pronouns, you and your. Paul includes himself in the first group, the, us, we, our, group. Of this group he says in verse 12',

YLT Ephesians 1:12 for our being to the praise of His glory, even those who did first hope in the Christ,

Who first hoped in the Christ? It was the Jews. The new Jerusalem Bible translates it this way.

NJB Ephesians 1:12 chosen to be, for the praise of his glory, the people who would put their hopes in Christ before he came. (Eph. 1:12 NJB)

If you'd like an in depth exegesis of this passage that includes the Greek text you can find one here.

http://pfrs.org/commentary/Eph_1_3.pdf

No. It's talking to both Jews and Gentiles. You have to keep reading.

12 "God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God.
13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago."
(Ephesians 1:12-13).


....

 

[Butch5]

No. It's talking to both Jews and Gentiles. You have to keep reading.

12 "God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God.
13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago."
(Ephesians 1:12-13).


....

Yes, Paul is writing to Jews and Gentiles. However, in verses 3-12 he is talking "about" Jews. The Jews were the ones who 'before hoped in the Christ.' The Gentiles are the "You" group who, 'in Him you also trusted after you heard the word of truth. One group, the, "us/we/our" group in which Paul puts himself before hoped in the Christ. The other group, the, "you/your" group trusted after they heard the word of truth.